For the Calvi's -- Do you hold to double predestination?

Don ...this might help...
C. The supralapsarian and infralapsarian interpretation of the decree:
(1) Points of agreement. Both agree:
(a) That God is not the Author of sin (supra as well as infra).
(b) That Scripture (not philosophy) is the only source of our knowledge of God's decree (supra as well as infra).
(c) That man's fall and punishment is not merely the object of God's foreknowledge but of his decree and foreordination (infra as well as supra).
(d) That faith is not the cause of the decree of election, neither sin the cause of the decree of reprobation (infra as well as supra).
(2) Points of disagreement:
(a) In general, supralapsarianism places the decree of predestination proper above (supra) the decree to permit the fall (lapsus); while infralapsarianism places the decree of predestination proper below (infra) the decree to permit the fall (lapsus). Hence:
Supralapsarianism:
predestination
fall
Infralapsarianism:
fall
predestination
(b) From this general differentiation it becomes clear that supra and infra differ in regard to their presentation of the order in the elements of God's plan. The logical order according to supra:
1. a decree determining the purpose of all things, namely, the revelation of God's virtues; specifically, the revelation of his mercy in the salvation of a definite number of possible men; and the revelation of his justice in the perdition of another definite number of possible men
2. a decree to create the men thus elected and reprobated.
3. a decree to permit them to fall.
4. a decree to provide a Mediator for the elect and through him to justify them, and to condemn the reprobate.
The logical order according to infra:
1. a decree to create man in holiness and blessedness.
2. a decree to permit man to fall.
3. a decree to elect some out of this fallen multitude and to leave others in their misery.
4. a decree to bring about the salvation of the elect through Christ. See II, F.
(c) From this again it is apparent that according to supra men viewed as possible or creatable and fallible are the objects of the decree; while, according to infra men viewed as fallen are objects of the decree.
(3) Objections:
(a) To infra:
1. God's justice does not explain the decree of reprobation. The ultimate ground of reprobation is God's sovereign will.
2. In order to maintain reprobation as an act of God's JUSTICE infra places reprobation after the FALL as if in the decree of reprobation God figured only with ORIGINAL sin and not also with ACTUAL sins.
(b) To supra:
1. Supra is correct when it maintains that God's glory is the final goal of all God's works, but the manner in which that goal will be realized is not thereby given; it is incorrect to say that in the eternal perdition of the reprobate God reveals his justice only and that in the eternal salvation of the elect he reveals his mercy exclusively.
2. According to supra the decree of predestination has for its object possible men and a possible Redeemer; but just how are we to conceive of a decree concerning possible men whose actual future existence has not even been determined? 3. Supra makes the damnation of the reprobate the object of the divine will IN THE SAME SENSE as the salvation of the elect. This position is not sustained by Scripture.
(c) To both infra and supra:
1. It is incorrect to define the final goal of all things as the revelation of God's mercy in the elect and of his justice in the reprobate.
2. It is incorrect to represent the lost condition of the reprobate in hell as an object of predestination.
3. Predestination unto eternal death should not be coordinated with predestination unto eternal life, for while certain Individuals constitute the object of reprobation, the human race under a new Head, even Christ, is the object of election.
4. Both supra and infra err when they regard the various elements of God's counsel as subordinately related to each other.
5. Both are one-sided: supra emphasizing God's sovereignty; Infra, God's righteousness, holiness, and mercy.
(4) The author's conclusion in regard to the whole matter: “God's decree should not be exclusively described . . . as a straight line to indicate a relation merely of before and after, cause and effect, means and goal; but it should also be viewed as a system the several elements of which are coordinately related to one another. . . . As in an organism all the members are dependent upon one another and in a reciprocal manner determine one another, so also the universe is God's work of art, the several parts of which are organically related.”

 

Rippon,

What precisely do you mean by quoting Jonah 4:11?

 

Apparently I wasn't clear. Of course when one willfully, with knowledge sins against God they die spiritually. But infants do not do this. They have no knowledge of what sin means. They can only die physically, not spiritually until they sin with intent. Only God knows the heart so only He know when a child reaches that point.
And don't look at me like I'm a space alien. This is orthodox baptist teaching. Just sayin. :)

 

He's trying to say that even though Nineveh had 120,000 children who did not know right from wrong (because they were too young), God was going to send them to hell anyway. :rolleyes:


There is nothing in the book of Jonah that even remotely implies that these children were damned. They would have certainly died physically if God had destroyed the city, but not spiritually.

 

That is precisely what I was asking, I don't see how this verse remotely suggests his implication.

 

THANKS.

I'm going to have to read this a few more times; initial scan seems to indicate that, in answer to my question about why one answers one way and another answers differently, the answer is: whether they realize it or admit it, one is infra, the other is supra.

BUT - there's more to read, digest, and research in what you've written.

 

Thanks,I had forgotten to give the reference. Amy was saying that she believes that infants are not accountable for their sins sice they have no knowledge --they can't tell their right hand from their left.

I was simply saying that is false. People in general were referenced in Jonah 4:11 including children. They were still held accountable for their sins. Everyone is held accountable for their sins.

 

So would the children in Nineveh have gone to hell had God destroyed it?

 

How in the world did you determine that the figure of 120,000 constituted all children? Or were you trying to make a joke with that goofy-face icon?

 

Don....this is from an article by herman bavnick.....it was too big to post the whole thing,,,,http://www.the-highway.com/Bavinck_predestination2.html

 

Yes,just as the children of Noah's time and the kiddies of Sodom and Gomorrah etc.

 

No Amy...you were clear then...and now ...but that is not baptist doctrine..but error. children are conceived in sin...spiritually dead in Adam.

5Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

 

I will always reject any doctrine formed in the roman catholic church.

 

Are you serious? You really believe God sends little babies that do not know what sin is to hell??????

I guess they just weren't "elect". :tear:


BALONY!

 

Yes. They are conceived in sin, with a nature prone to sin. But they are not held accountable until they sin with willful intent. This happens when they DO know "their right hand from their left".

 

Using poetic language as a base for doctrine is never a good practice.

 

"Little babies"is all you are focusing upon. There is no time element with God. You just admitted that those who don't know their right hand from their left are not held accountable for their sins. Yet the passage from Jonah states that 120,000 could not tell their right hand from their left spiritually speaking. Among that number certainly were children and infants.

All sinners need a Savior. If anyone is not covered by His blood --they will not be saved.

You're not suggesting that the non-elect will be saved,are you?

 

The problem with this logic is that it ignores the ultimate reason they are "on their way to hell" and "unable to respond to the divine appeal to be reconciled."

In the Calvinistic system, the reason they are condemned to a totally depraved nature from birth is because God so decreed it, so to argue "they were already on their way to hell" ignores the choice God made to condemn them to that fate prior to their ever being born. Thus, either way, God chose (predetermined) their condemnation/reprobation. There really isn't any way around it, IMO.

 

But yet adults are referenced as not being able to tell their right hand from their left in Holy Writ. You are firing blanks Amy.

 

Here is some reading on the OP


Here is John Bunyan
http://www.mountzion.org/johnbunyan/text/bun-reprobate.pdf

http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/Election/Reprobation-Double-Predestination/

http://www.jeffriddle.net/2011/07/murray-on-reprobation-in-romans-922.html

http://www.cprf.co.uk/articles/doesGoddesire.htm

http://books.google.com/books?id=cp...&resnum=7&ved=0CEAQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/sup_infr.htm